More points does not mean better team

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

I run a very competitive 14 team league. This year I'm the 1 seed at 10-3 and 1307 points. The 2 seed is 9-4 with 1392 points. But if I had played him HTH every week I beat him 8-5. The 4 seed is 8-5 with 1272 points. But if I played him every week I'd be 6-7. I never had any monster weeks but I scored consistently well, which is the true way to rate a team IMHO. I looked at each week's scores and plugged in a win if you finished in the top 7 and a loss if you finished the bottom 7, my record would have been 11-2, the 2 seed (with more overall points) would have been 7-6 and the 4 seed would have been 8-5. I use points as the tiebreaker for seedings because its easy and least messy. I'm considering a different method. I know half this bored is intellectually challenged but I look forward to some good feedback. Food for thought

[nobody 2,037]

I always used all-play record as the first tie breaker.

[SUXBNME 1,324]

I run a very competitive 14 team league. This year I'm the 1 seed at 10-3 and 1307 points. The 2 seed is 9-4 with 1392 points. But if I had played him HTH every week I beat him 8-5. The 4 seed is 8-5 with 1272 points. But if I played him every week I'd be 6-7. I never had any monster weeks but I scored consistently well, which is the true way to rate a team IMHO. I looked at each week's scores and plugged in a win if you finished in the top 7 and a loss if you finished the bottom 7, my record would have been 11-2, the 2 seed (with more overall points) would have been 7-6 and the 4 seed would have been 8-5. I use points as the tiebreaker for seedings because its easy and least messy. I'm considering a different method. I know half this bored is intellectually challenged but I look forward to some good feedback. Food for thought

If you want proper feedback, then make your post readable.

I'm not trying to be a dik as usual, but being honest. By readable, I mean your sentence structure and how it's presented for us to see. Once again, not trying to be a dik.

 

run a very competitive 14 team league.

This year I'm the 1 seed at 10-3 and 1307 points. The 2 seed is 9-4 with 1392 points.

But if I had played him HTH every week I beat him 8-5.

The 4 seed is 8-5 with 1272 points. But if I played him every week I'd be 6-7.

 

I never had any monster weeks but I scored consistently well, which is the true way to rate a team IMHO.

 

I looked at each week's scores and plugged in a win if you finished in the top 7 and a loss if you finished the bottom 7, my record would have been 11-2, the 2 seed (with more overall points) would have been 7-6 and the 4 seed would have been 8-5.

I use points as the tiebreaker for seedings because its easy and least messy. I'm considering a different method. I know half this bored is intellectually challenged but I look forward to some good feedback.

 

Food for thought

[GridironGuzzlers 3]

You are being a dik, therefore representing the half I mentioned. Thanks for that! Proved my point. So you have no reason to respond again since you have nothing to add. Totally readable to an intelligent reader. Good day sir

[tigeru 65]

This would be a golf only thought

[michaelboltontheassclown 5]

I have looked at my league for years and considered weekly wins and losses based on to half and bottom half, but the truth is that it seems more fun to deal with what you get each week in head to head. I like playing against a specific roster.

[bfros 53]

In FF, head to head record is meaningless because it the team you play each week is completely arbitrary. And because there is no way to play defense against a team, your sole task is to simply outscore them. Again, very arbitrary and one-dimensional.

The reason most leagues use head-to-head is because it mimics real football and sports in general. Plus it's more exciting to try to beat one opponent each week and cognitively simpler to track that.

 

Having rankings based on total points scored is also not perfect because (like you said) of anomolous weeks where you might score 170 pts or 60 pts. Those outliers can really affect things and therefore misrepresent how good or bad your team is.

 

The fairest way **that is readily available** for most leagues is to use the Breakdown record. Each week each team gets a record based on their matchup with every other team. So if I outscored every team in a 10 team league, I'd go 9-0 for that week. If I outscored 6 of the teams, I'd go 6-3. The problem with this method is illustrated with the following example: What if I score 110 pts for one week, and the other teams score 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 119. I would 0-10 for that week. Not cool. Going 0-10 for a week can really sink you.

 

The fairest and simplest way I can think of is to award the top half of the teams in a league with 1 win and the bottom half with 1 loss for any given week. I think that was the method you were referring to above....which is not available in some host websites.

[PackYourNut 47]

What you want is called Victory Points... Look it up...

[Law 220]

Whew! And I thought I had too much time on my hands.

[NEWPOSTERGUY! 266]

- if you could actually play 'defense' in magik foosball (as in preventing your opponents players from scoring) than your posit would hold merit.

 

but you don't

 

ergo ... it doesn't

[Kevin44Bears 0]

if you're looking for a fun fantasy league designed specifically for the NFL Playoffs check out www.knockoutfantasyplayoffs.com If you love fantasy football you will LOVE this league

[BattleshipLorenzen 3]

We've spent a lot of time trying to come up with something to solve these issues.* IMO, Victory Points isn't quite as good as all-played record. A consistent, very good (so well managed, and good players) team likely has a higher floor, so a bad week may put that team at 7th out of 12 (and the "bad" week may still be above the weekly average of the top 6 teams). All-played accounts for this, while VP does not.

 

I like all-played over points total for the reasons the OP and others listed. The performance of one FF team is generally correlated (positively) to the performance of other FF teams (e.g., a non-existent Denver passing attack can lower performance for several teams), despite some zero-sum effects (such as a lack of passing due to running game plan). There seem to be league "up weeks" and "down weeks" for overall scoring. All-played record rewards teams that still perform well when other teams are also performing well (specifically, they are rewarded for beating other high-performing teams).

 

 

Regarding the idea of rewarding team quality while keeping things simple enough and fun, the answer simply seems to be some variant of multiple games per week. E.g.,

 

 

1. Simple Double-headers: Two HTH matchups each week.

 

2. One HTH and one VP game each week.

 

Twist: I'd like a setup wherein your performance in a HTH matchup influences your opponent in another game. For example, winning your HTH could lead to you gaining 10 points for the Victory Points game. To be worth implementing, it would have to be more complicated than that IMO, as that doesn't sound any better to me than just option 2 above.

 

 

* though it doesn't matter now (for my leagues) because everyone likes Yahoo's mobile app (they make a nice app; they just don't know ANYTHING about fantasy football, despite getting far better over the years)

[tanatastic 2,061]

The only measure of any semblance of fantasy football skill or team power rank is total points scored. Its the only measuring stick of how a team did and how they managed their starts and sits.

 

Actual wins and losses are completely random and are zero skill. I won a game this year scoring 66 points and I lost a game scoring 154.

[Law 220]

Leading scorer in all 4 leagues. 43--11 record and finished #1 in 3 leagues, #2 in the 4th (where I was scored on like a $5 who-are).

[FeelingMN 273]

Whatever tiebreaker you use, it should try to encompass the entirety of the league/season. It's why H2H sucks....you're using one week, maybe two out of 13-14 to decide someone's playoff fate. Looking at overall points/winning pct. takes the totality of decisions made during an entire season into account....not just someone's bye week. You're using more information to make a decision, which is always better.

 

I don't like assigning wins to the top half of scorers either. Take the OP for example, the #7 team gets a win but the #8 teams gets a loss. The difference between those two teams is probably very slight, at least compared #7 and #1. But #7 and #1 get treated the same. Looking at overall winning pct would help differentiate those teams a bit more.

[FeelingMN 273]

Leading scorer in all 4 leagues. 43--11 record and finished #1 in 3 leagues, #2 in the 4th (where I was scored on like a $5 who-are).

You trust Roethlisberger this week?

[Law 220]

You trust Roethlisberger this week?

 

Against Atlanta? Sure! But in one league, I have Brees and I'll play him instead. But barely. I have Ben ranked at 5 this week. Brees at 4. I'd play Ben over the likes of Brady, Ryan, Stafford, Romo, Cutler, Rivers, etc. I would play Brees, P Manning, Rodgers, and Luck over him though. But it's close with Brees. My league is yards heavy so I'll go with Brees. JMO

[Quickolas1 80]

No one presumes scoring inconsistent weekly points is the goal.

[southcarolina 166]

Leading scorer in all 4 leagues. 43--11 record and finished #1 in 3 leagues, #2 in the 4th (where I was scored on like a $5 who-are).

You must be extremely lucky.

[Law 220]

You must be extremely lucky.